Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CRIMES
498A: OF CRUELTY BY
HUSBAND OR RELATIVES
OF HUSBAND
YASH CHANDEL
PROF. ROSE VARGHESE
2ND YEAR B.A.LLB.(H)
FACULTY OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-ished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
For the purpose of this section, cruelty means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such demand.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ,Ratanlal &dhirajlal, 21st edition reprint 2009,pg. 560
The object for which section 498A IPC was introduced is amply
reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting
Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1983. As clearly
stated therein the increase in number of dowry deaths is a matter
of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented
upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some of cases, cruelty of
the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in
suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, which
constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore,
it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 (in short the Cr.P.C) and the Evidence Act
suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths
but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, inlaws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of
dowry death and cruelty 2.
The act of harassment would amount to cruelty for the purpose
of this section. Drinking and late coming habits of the husband
coupled with beating and demanding dowry have been taken to
amount to cruelty within the meaning of this section, but this
section has been held not to include a husband who merely
drinks as a matter of routine and comes home late3.
In a case before Supreme Court it was observed that this section
has given a new dimension to the concept of cruelty for the
purposes of matrimonial remedies and that the type of conduct
described here would be relevant for proving cruelty.
2
3
MEANING OF CRUELTY:
It was held in Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu4, that
cruelty is a common essential in offences under both the sections
304B and 498A of IPC. The two sections are not mutually
inclusive but both are distinct offences and persons acquitted
under section 304B for the offence of dowry death can be
convicted for an offence under sec.498A of IPC. The meaning of
cruelty is given in explanation to section 498A. Section 304B
does not contain its meaning but the meaning of cruelty or
harassment as given in section 498-A applies in section 304-B as
well. Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to an
offence whereas under section 304-B the offence is of dowry
death and the death must have occurred during the course of
seven years of marriage. But no such period is mentioned in
section 498-A.
In the case of Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik5 , it was held
that the word cruelty is defined in the explanation which inter
alia says that harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her
or any related persons to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or any valuable security is cruelty.
Kinds of cruelty covered under this section includes following:
(a) Cruelty by vexatious litigation
(b) Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits
(c) Cruelty by persistent demand
(d) Cruelty by extra-marital relations
(e) Harassment for non-dowry demand
(f) Cruelty by non-acceptance of baby girl
(g) Cruelty by false attacks on chastity
(h) Taking away children
4
5
2004 (9) SCC 157; 2004 SCC(Cr) 1417; 2003 AIR(SC) 3828
1986 (2) Crimes 435; 1986 (92) CRLJ 1510; 1986 RLR 220
Ibid
1989 SCC(Cr) 105; 1989 (1) SCC 244; 1989 AIR(SC) 378; 1989 (1) Crimes 173; 1989 (95) CRLJ 809
8
9
Ibid
2008 I AD (Crl.)(S.C.) 437
10
11
14
State of Maharshtra v Jaiprakash Krishna Mangaonkar & Ors II(2003) DMC 384
Annapurnabai @Bhoori v State of MP I (2000)DMC 699
16
Ramesh Dalaji Godad v State of Gujarat II (2004) DMC 124
17
I (2003) DMC 287
18
] U.Subba Rao & Ors v State of Karnataka II (2003) DMC 102; Umesh Kumar Shah &Ors v State of Bihar
I (2004) DMC 260
15
The court has in another case not punished the guilty under
S.498A IPC even though medical Reports clearly showed that the
death was homicidal by throttling. This was simply because
According to the court, even though there were dowry demands
in the past, the court felt that Proximity of the death to be caused
due to such a demand was unlikely19.Who decides this
Proximity? The cause and its effect on the womans health or life
may be profound and even cause her mental unrest at a later
stage. While on the one hand, womens emancipation is the need
of the hour and prevention of ever increasing dowry deaths and
harassment needs to be stopped, it is also clearly noticed that
women today are still tortured and often the court, being the
ultimate saviour also does not come to the rescue to protect these
women.
19
Ravinder Bhagwan Todkar & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors I (2004) DMC 791 (DB)
Like in the case of Savitri Devi v Ramesh Chand & Ors20, the
court held clearly that there was a misuse and exploitation of the
provisions to such an extent that it was hitting at the foundation
of marriage itself and proved to be not so good for health of
society at large. The court believed that authorities and
lawmakers had to review the situation and legal provisions to
prevent such from taking place.
This section was made keeping in mind protection of the married
woman from unscrupulous husbands but is clearly misused by
few women and again this is strictly condemned in Saritha v R.
Ramachandran21 where the court did notice that the reverse
trend and asked the law Commission and Parliament to make the
offence a non-cognizable and bailable one. It is been a duty of the
court to condemn wrongdoings and protect the victim but what
happens when the victim turns into the abuser? What remedy
does the husband have here?
On this ground, the woman gets to divorce her husband and remarry or even gain money in the form of compensation. Many
women rights groups go against the idea of making the offence a
non-cognizable and bailable one thinking that this gives the
accused a chance to escape conviction.
20
21
But what this would do is that it would give a fair chance to the
man and above all help meet the ends of justice. Justice must
protect the weaker and ensure that the wronged is given a
chance to claim back his/her due.
When women accuse their husbands under S.498A IPC by
making the offence non-bailable and cognizable , if the man is
innocent he does not get a chance quickly to get justice and
justice delayed is justice denied.
Therefore, the lawmakers must suggest some way of making this
section non-biased to any individual such that the guilty is
punished and the person wronged is given justice.
The position of the women in India is still bad. They still need
rights to alleviate themselves in society but many a times fail to
notice others rights as long as their rights are ensured. The
educated woman of today must agree with the mantra of equality
and demand the same but the trend is slowly getting reversed.
Women are taking due advantage of the fact that they are
referred to as the weaker sex and on the foundation of rights
ensured to them are violating others rights.
RECENT JUDGEMENTS:
Indian Courts in their recent judgements have looked into the
matter of misuse of Sec.-498A I.P.C. As this Section provides that
when an F.I.R. is lodged all the family members of the husband
can be roped in. In their judicial observations and remarks, the
courts have expressed deep anguish over this law. Here are some
recent judicial observations.
1990 Punjab and Haryana High court observed in Jasbir Kaur
vs. State of Haryana22, case as:
It is known that an estranged wife will go to any extent to rope in
as many relatives of the husband as possible in a desperate effort
to salvage whatever remains of an estranged marriage.
In Kanaraj vs. State of Punjab23, the apex court observed as:
for the fault of the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot
in all cases be held to be involved. The acts attributed to such
persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they
cannot be held responsible by mere conjectures and implications.
The tendency to rope in relatives of the husband as accused has
to be curbed
Karnataka High Court, in the case of State Vs. Srikanth24,
observed as:
Roping in of the whole of the family including brothers and
sisters-in-law has to be depreciated unless there is a specific
material against these persons; it is down right on the part of the
police to include the whole of the family as accused
22
26
27
28
(ii) The husband and his parents were greedy people. Their desire
for dowry was insatiable. They went on demanding dowry even
after two years of marriage, and since the parents of wife could
not meet these, they started ill-treating her with a view to
coercing her parents to give dowry. The Delhi High Court held
that this amounted to cruelty; Adarsh Parkash v. Sarita, 29
DRUNKENNESS
No doubt drinking is a constituent of culture all over the world,
and is almost a cult in certain societies. Yet, even here as
elsewhere a habit of excessive drinking is a vice and cannot be
considered a reasonable wear and tear of married life. No
reasonable person marries to bargain to endure habitual
drunkenness, a disgusting conduct. And yet it is not an
independent ground of any matrimonial relief in India. But it may
constitute treatment with cruelty, if indulged in by a spouse and
continued, in spite of remonstrance, by the other. It may cause
great anguish and distress to the wife who never suspected what
she was bargaining for and may sooner or later find living
together not only miserable but unbearable. If it was so, she may
leave him and may, apart from cruelty, even complain of
constructive desertion Rita v. Brij Kishore30.
29
30
OBJECT
31
32
Wilful Conduct
The allegations against the husband were that he abused and
beat his wife, forced her to have a common kitchen with a harijan
family, accused her of adultery and of carrying in her womb
someone elses child, pressurizing her to agree for an abortion,
and such other acts. This amounted to a wilful conduct of cruelty
towards wife; Rishi Kumar v. State of Haryana34.
33
34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:
INDIAN PENAL CODE
CRIMINAL LAW
K.D. GAUR
S.N. MISHRA
CRIMINAL LAW
WEBSITES:
www.indiankanoon.com
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.lawyersclubindia.com